UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


rrf.SF: 


-  ■ 


...  —  .. .  i... 


Class 

yj 


Book 


Volume 


1 


Ja  09-20M 


•*sar^ 


. 


-  •  'r-  *.v "  < 

""T/  J 

■  :  ••  • 


V# 


_ .  '‘■Sffi.xp 

/>  -vN'j  . 

7^  c  ■  I 

i"  v,  . 


k 


7*  *7^r*r 

^  -V- 


. 


.  7?  -  -  - 


. 

:  -.  '  /  .  .  •%  1  ■'■  <-L  >-\ 

•  ,w-.'  '  ■  ,‘,.t  :  .  :  ■••■,  *_  .;•  '•  >  .•£  -•*.- 

.  %%£  -  •-.  ^-.*r  ^  ;>v>  •«.-.  ■  &>*  & 

■ 

•- 

v  ’  ■'  yi  .  '-V  -  ^  •  -  ,■  “  '-3  ’  ■ 

. 

‘  ^  -  '  •"  '  *  '  r  >'v  r  . .  ■-'  :  ••  *..i 

■ 

.  >»  *  •  .  ,  •••.-. 

r 

» 

■  .  i':  -  ’’  ■  .  •-  ’  •■  ".-.v  .  ■  v:T'-:  V-./  '- '  i  .. 

■■  ■  •  7-  •  .  -Kc--  -  v.'  ■  ■-  kk  ■> 

-  •'  ....  ■  ■  •  -v  •■  .  \>rr  .  *  '  ■ 

-  .  '**•£  V.  -  .  ,r ~§*-  '  -  '•  ‘  -■■'•v- -  V  ■' L-'  .*57%  -* 


* .  -  :  ‘  -  -  •  •  ^  • 

-  :  .  - J 
-  *  — *  •  *  5 ’  1  ^  .r:  .  ^  k  .'^-  '  '  ^.St  -  J' 

- 

'  k  "  r-.  .. .  .  • :  '.  ••  .  V  '  /  »:;  ••••  “ 

-• 

-v  .  -  ,• 


>2  r~ 


Reprinted  from  ANNALS  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and 

Social  Science,  November,  1901 

The  Evolution  of  the  American  System  of 
Forming  and  Admitting  New  States 
into  the  Union. 

Our  system  of  carving  new  states  out  of  the  public  domain  and 
incorporating  them  into  the  union  is  one  of  the  contributions  to 
political  science  which  the  American  people  have  worked  out  for 
themselves.  In  the  beginning  of  our  independent  existence  Congress 
gave  no  consideration  to  the  question  of  the  formation  or  admission  of 
new  states  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains,  at  least  there  is  no  recorded 
evidence  of  it.  The  Articles  of  Confederation  ignored  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  their  existence.  Even  Franklin,  who  previously  had  given 
considerable  thought  to  western  governments,  considered  in  his 
draught  of  the  Articles  the  possibility  of  admitting  to  the  union  cer¬ 
tain  then  existing  British  colonies  onl}-.1  The  idea  of  forming  new 
colonies  in  the  west,  subject  to  the  British  crown,  was  not  a  new  one, 
and  indeed  attempts  were  soon  made  actually  to  establish  new  gov¬ 
ernments  in  that  region;2  but  these  attempts  were  unsuccessful,  and 
through  the  Revolution  the  west  remained  de  facto  with  the  claimant 
states. 

As  the  Revolutionary  war  progressed  the  idea  gained  ground  that 
the  western  lands  might  be  made  to  pay  the  war  debt.  In  June,  1778, 
the  Rhode  Island  delegates  in  Congress  wished  to  have  the  Articles  of 
ry  Confederation  amended  so  as  to  secure  to  Congress  the  crown  lands, 
“  reserving  to  the  states  within  whose  limits  such  crown  lands  may 
be  the  entire  and  complete  jurisdiction  thereof.”8  New  Jersey  also 
objected  to  the  Articles  on  this  ground.4  Alexander  Hamilton,  in 
September,  1780,  suggested  that  Congress  be  invested  with  the  whole 
or  a  part  of  the  western  lands  for  revenue  purposes,  ‘‘reserving  the 
jurisdiction  to  the  states  by  whom  they  are  granted.”6  Other  ex¬ 
pressions  of  the  same  kind  s  might  be  cited,  but  this  is  sufficient  to 
show  that,  with  the  exception  to  be  noted  below,  the  small  states 

1  Franklin’s  Works  (Bigelow),  v,  553. 

2  See  Turner’s  Western  State- Making  in  the  Revolutionary  Era  in  American  Histor. 
ical  Review ,  i,  Nos.  1  and  2;  also,  the  writer’s  New  Governments  West  of  the  Allegha- 
nies  before  1780 — Bulletin  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin.  Economics,  Political 
Science,  and  History  series,  ii,No.  1. 

3  Journals  of  Commerce ,  iv,  370. 

4 Journals,  iv,  377. 

5  Letter  to  James  Duane,  quoted  by  Adams,  Maryland' s  Influence ,  p.  34. 

6 See  American  Archives ,  fifth  series,  iii,  1020. 

[469] 


p  10792 


8o 


Annaes  of  the  American  Academy 


without  claims  to  western  lands  themselves  were  distinctly  admitting 
that  states  having  such  claims  should  retain  at  least  the  jurisdiction 
over  them.  We  see  also  that  so  pronounced  a  nationalist  as  Alexander 
Hamilton  held,  at  this  time,  that  the  old  states  should  have  individual 
jurisdiction  over  the  west. 

The  most  persistent  declarations  in  favor  of  Congress  using  the  back 
lands  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  war  came  from  Maryland.  Vir¬ 
ginia  claimed  a  vast  extent  of  the  western  country  for  herself,  and  if 
she  should  retain  it  the  Marylanders  felt  that  it  would  be  a  serious 
menace  in  various  ways  to  their  prosperity.1  In  apprehension  of  the 
growing  power  of  her  already  powerful  neighbor,  Maryland,  through 
her  delegates  in  Congress,  moved  October,  1777  that  Congress  have 
the  right  to  fix  the  western  boundary  of  states  claiming  “  to  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi  or  South  Sea.”2  Maryland  alone  was  in  favor  of  this.  Nev¬ 
ertheless  the  Virginia  delegates  were  alarmed:  the  Articles  of  Con¬ 
federation  had  not  yet  been  sent  to  the  states  for  ratification,  and  they 
secured  the  insertion  of  a  clause  providing  that  “  no  state  shall  be 
deprived  of  territory  for  the  benefit  of  the  United  States.” 

It  was  iust  this  western  land  question  which  caused  the  long  delay 
in  putting  the  Articles  of  Confederation  into  effect.  The  other  states 
ratified  them  with  little  difficulty,  but  Maryland  positively  refused  to 
do  so  till  that  question  should  be  settled  to  her  satisfaction.  It  was 
not  till  the  demands  of  Maryland  were  backed  by  a  growing  public 
opinion  and  the  request  of  Congress 3  that  the  determined  opposition 
of  Virginia  gave  way,  and  she  offered  to  the  United  States  both  soil 
and  jurisdiction  of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  river.4  It  was 
more  than  three  years  afterwards  that  the  cession  was  finally  accepted,5 
but  Maryland  was  satisfied  that  she  had  gained  her  point.  Her  dele¬ 
gates  were  instructed  to  sign  the  Articles  of  Confederation,6  which 
were  then  put  in  force. 

About  the  time  of  the  large  cession  of  Virginia  came  the  smaller 
though  important  ones  of  New  York,7  Massachusetts  and  Connec¬ 
ticut,  and  Congress  was  confronted  with  the  necessity  of  adopting 
some  system  of  organization  and  government  for  the  western  coun¬ 
try.  It  was  indeed  decided  that  it  should  be  cut  into  separate  and 
independent  states.  That  had  been  a  part  of  Maryland’s  contention 

1  See  Maryland’s  Subsequent  Declaration,  Journa Is,  v,  210. 

2 Journals ,  iii,  435. 

3  September  6,  1780 ,  Journals,  vi,  180. 

4  By  act  of  Assembly  passed  January  2,  1781,  Hening’s  Statutes ,  x,  564. 

5  Journals ,  ix,  67. 

6  Act  of  Maryland  Assembly,  laid  before  Congress  February  12,  ij&i,  Journals, 
vii,  32. 

7  Journals,  vii,  45. 

[470] 


Forming  and  Admitting  New  States 


8i 


in  the  beginning,1  when  elsewhere  the  apparently  universal  cry  was 
that  the  old  states  should  retain  at  least  the  jurisdiction  over  the  west. 
It  seems  to  have  been  regarded  as  a  rather  secondary  matter.  Mary¬ 
land  desired  that  Virginia  be  deprived  of  both  soil  and  jurisdiction; 
so,  as  a  natural  corollary,  she  proposed  the  formation  of  new  states. 
When  asking  for  cessions  Congress2  promised  such  formations,  prob¬ 
ably  in  order  to  quiet  any  fears  some  may  have  had  that  a  more  objec¬ 
tionable  use  would  be  made  of  the  land.  Moreover,  Virginia  had 
made  it  a  condition  of  her  cessions.  That  much  then  was  settled.  It 
remained  for  Congress  to  provide  the  system  by  which  it  should  be 
brought  about. 

The  first  action  taken  by  Congress  having  any  reference  to  new 
states  was  in  the  resolve  of  October  io,  1780,  already  noted.  Con¬ 
gress  then  guaranteed  that  land  which  any  state  might  cede  to  the 
United  States  would  “  be  settled  and  formed  into  separate  republican 
states,  which  shall  become  members  of  the  federal  union,  and  have 
the  same  rights  of  sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence  as  the  other 
states;  that  each  state  which  shall  be  so  formed  shall  contain  a  suitable 
extent  of  territory,  not  less  than  100  nor  more  than  150  miles  square, 
or  as  near  thereto  as  circumstances  will  admit.”3  This  would  mean 
about  twenty -five  new  states  east  of  the  Mississippi,  providing  each 
were  150  miles  square.  With  100  miles  square  to  each  state  nearly 
sixty  new  states  could  have  been  expected  east  of  the  Mississippi,  or 
over  300  in  the  present  United  States,  exclusive  of  Alaska  and  insular 
possessions.  Until  the  passage  of  the  Ordinance  of  1784  Congress 
took  no  further  action  regarding  new  states,  although  an  attempt  was 
made  in  May,  1782,  to  limit  the  size  of  new  states  to  a  maximum  of 
130  miles  square.4 

Meanwhile  propositions  and  attempts  at  the  formation  of  definite 
states  w’ere  being  made.  As  already  indicated,  the  idea  of  new  west¬ 
ern  governments  was  by  no  means  new. 

Probably  the  earliest  expressions  of  the  idea  of  forming  trans-Alle¬ 
ghany  governments  by  the  united  action  of  the  old  ones  were  in  the 
plans  for  the  union  of  the  colonies,  proposed  in  the  Albany  Conven¬ 
tion  in  1754.5  The  President-General  and  Grand  Council,  represent¬ 
ing  the  union,  were  to  make  new  settlements  in  the  west,  and  also  to 

1See  Declaration  of  Maryland’s  First  Constitutional  Convention,  American 
Archives ,  fifth  series,  iii,  178,  cf.  Journals,  iii,  436,  v,  210;  also,  Hening’s  Statutes, 
x,  549-556. 

2  Journals,  vi,  213. 

3 Journals,  vi,  213. 

4  Journals,  vii,  362. 

5  Plan  for  union  of  the  Northern  Colonies,  Collections  of  the  Massachusetts  Histor¬ 
ical  Society,  first  series,  vii,  203.  Franklin’s  plan  in  his  IVorks  (Bigelow),  ii,  355. 


82 


Annals  of  the  American  Academy 


“make  necessary  rules  and  orders  for  the  well  regulating  and  man¬ 
aging  such  new  settlements  till  the  Crown  shall  see  fit  to  form  them 
into  particular  government  or  governments.”  Franklin,  in  his  com¬ 
ments  on  this  scheme,  thought  distinct  governments  might  be  formed 
when  the  new  colonies  “  become  sufficiently  populous.”1  The  plans 
as  we  have  them  say  nothing  about  their  admission  into  the  union  in 
due  time,  but  probably  that  was  expected.  We  find  then  in  embryo 
the  present  system  of  organizing  and  conducting  new  territorial  gov¬ 
ernments  by  a  union  as  far  back  as  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century. 

The  Transylvanians,  in  1775,  elected  a  delegate  to  the  Continental 
Congress.  He  went  to  Philadelphia  with  the  petition  from  his  con¬ 
stituents  “  that  Transylvania  may  be  added  to  the  number  of  the 
United  Colonies,”  and  met  with  some  encouragement.  The  settlers 
in  western  Pennsylvania  tried  to  organize  as  a  separate  government, 
and  get  recognition  by  Congress  as  a  separate  state,  but  there  is  no 
evidence  that  Congress  even  considered  their  request.2  The  people  of 
Franklin  made  greater  progress  in  organizing  their  state  government, 
but  were  also  ignored  by  Congress. 

These  three  inchoate  states  illustrate  the  fact  that  it  was  the  accepted 
idea  on  the  frontier  at  least  that  new  governments  should  b^  formed  in 
the  west.  They  show  the  tendency  of  the  early  western  settlers  toward 
independent  local  government  and  the  formation  of  new  states  for 
themselves.  Perhaps  the  best  illustration  of  this  is  in  the  case  of  Ver¬ 
mont,  then  practically  a  frontier  state,  successfully  maintaining  her¬ 
self  against  the  opposition  of  the  claimant  states.  The  pioneers  of 
those  days  had  not  sufficient  loyalty  to  the  states  claiming  their  alle¬ 
giance  to  prevent  their  attempting  to  create  new  commonwealths  in 
the  territory  of  their  mother  states.  Congressional  action  in  this 
direction  came  too  slowly  for  them.  With  the  session  of  the  lands 
and  the  formation  of  liberal  state  governments  by  Congress  it  could 
be  expected  that  the  new  organizations  would  receive  the  unqualified 
support  of  the  impatient  settlers. 

Probably  the  first  plan  looking  to  the  formation  of  a  definite  state 
by  congressional  initiative  was  that  of  Silas  Deane.  It  was  in  a  letter 
to  the  secret  committee  of  Congress  in  December,  1776,  proposing  that 
the  western  land  be  made  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  war  and  that  a 
settlement  be  made  at  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio  to  enhance  its  value. 
He  thought  a  tract  of  two  hundred  miles  square,  between  the  Ohio 
and  Mississippi  should  be  given  to  a  company  of  Americans  and  Euro- 

1  Franklin’s  Works  (Bigelow),  ii,  369. 

2  For  a  full  discussion  of  Transylvania  and  Westsylvania,  see  the  writer’s  New 
Governments  West  of  the  Alleghanies ,  chaps,  iv  and  v. 

[472] 


Forming  and  Admitting  New  States 


83 


peans  who  should  engage  to  establish  a  ‘  ‘  civil  government  regulated 
and  supported  on  the  most  free  and  liberal  principles,  taking  therein 
the  advice  of  the  honorable  Congress  of  the  United  States  of  America.” 
After  reaching  the  size  of  one  thousand  families  the  new  state  should 
be  taxed  for  “  the  publick  expenses  of  the  Continent  or  United  States,” 
and  should  then  “  be  entitled  to  a  voice  in  Congress.”1  It  can  be 
seen  at  once  that  this  scheme  foreshadowed  territorial  government  by 
Congress,  and  admission  to  the  union  upon  the  condition  of  a  certain 
number  of  inhabitants.  One  thousand  families  in  a  new  country  would 
mean  a  total  population  of  not  over  five  thousand — a  rather  small  num¬ 
ber  for  statehood. 

Thomas  Paine’s  plan  2  came  out  in  1780.  He  proposed  that  a  new' 
state  be  formed  in  about  the  region  of  the  proposed  Vaudalia  colony, 
or  modern  West  Virginia.  In  this  connection  he  made  some  significant 
and  interesting  suggestions  concerning  the  establishment  of  new  state 
governments  as  follows  : 

”  The  setting  off  the  boundary  of  any  new  state  will  naturally  be  the 
first  step,  and  as  it  must  be  supposed  not  to  be  peopled  at  the  time  it 
is  laid  off,  a  constitution  must  be  formed  by  the  United  States  as  the 
rule  of  government  in  any  new  state  for  a  certain  term  of  years  (per¬ 
haps  ten)  or  until  the  state  becomes  peopled  to  a  certain  number  of 
inhabitants  ;  after  which  the  whole  and  sole  right  of  modelling  their 
government  to  rest  with  themselves.  A  question  may  arise  whether 
a  new  state  should  immediately  possess  an  equal  right  with  the  pres¬ 
ent  ones  in  all  cases  which  may  come  before  Congress.  This  experi¬ 
ence  will  best  determine  ;  but  at  first  view  of  the  matter  it  appears 
thus  :  that  it  ought  to  be  immediately  incorporated  into  the  union  on 
the  ground  of  a  family  right,  such  a  state  standing  in  the  line  of  a 
younger  child  of  the  same  stock  ;  but  as  new  emigrants  will  have 
something  to  learn  when  they  first  come  to  America,  and  a  new  state 
requiring  aid  rather  than  capable  of  giving  it,  it  might  be  most  con¬ 
venient  to  admit  its  immediate  representation  into  Congress,  there 
to  sit,  hear,  and  debate  on  all  questions  and  matters,  but  not  to  vote  on 
any  till  after  the  expiration  of  seven  years.  ’  ’ 

Is  not  this  a  clear  indication  of  the  later  territorial  government  and 
the  territorial  delegate  to  Congress,  showing  the  territory  as  a  recog¬ 
nized  part  of  the  United  States,  admitted  regularly  into  the  Union  in 
time  ? 

Three  years  later  came  what  may  be  called  the  army  plan,3  brought 
forward  by  General  Rufus  Putnam  and  other  leading  officers.  They 

1  American  Archives ,  fifth  series,  iii,  1021. 

2  Paine’s  Public  Good ,  p.  31. 

3  Cutler’s  Life  of  Cutler ,  i,  156-9,  cf.  Pickering’s  Life  of  Pickering ,  i,  457. 

[473] 


34 


Annals  of  the  American  Academy 


proposed  that  a  new  state  be  established  in  the  region  which  is  now 
Ohio,  and  the  land  given  out  to  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Revolu¬ 
tionary  army,  the  United  States  government  giving  them  also  full 
farming  equipments,  transportation,  and  entire  support  for  three  years. 
It  was  expected  that  this  would  be  a  military  state  protecting  the  coun¬ 
try  against  the  northwestern  Indians.  Before  setting  out  for  their  new 
homes  the  settlers,  or  “associators”  as  they  were  called,  were  to  have 
a  meeting  to  form  a  constitution  for  the  new  state,  and  at  this  meet¬ 
ing  “  delegates  ”  were  to  “  be  chosen  to  represent  them  in  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  to  take  their  seats  as  soon  as  the  new  state  shall 
be  erected.”  The  thirteenth  article  of  the  plan  provides  “That  the 
state  so  constituted  shall  be  admitted  into  the  confederacy  of  the  United 
States  and  entitled  to  all  the  benefits  of  the  union  in  common  with 
the  other  members  thereof.” 

How  much  progress  was  made  with  the  army  plan  we  do  not  know7. 
It  was  intended  to  get  the  opinion  of  officers  and  soldiers  concerning 
it  and  then  apply  to  Congress  for  the  grant.1  It  seems  likely  that  it 
was  merged  into  the  officers’  petition,2  wrbich  wTas  a  somewhat  different 
scheme.  The  latter  wTas  dated  June  16,  1783,  and  signed  by  285  officers 
of  the  Continental  line.  Most  of  them  were  northern  men,  the 
majority  being  from  Massachusetts.  They  asked  for  nearly  the  same 
land  that  the  army  plan  contemplated,  saying  that  ‘‘this  country  is  of 
sufficient  extent,  the  land  of  such  quality,  and  situation  such  as  may 
induce  Congress  to  assign  and  mark  it  out  as  a  Tract  or  Territory  suit¬ 
able  to  form  a  distinct  government  (or  colony  of  the  United  States) 
in  time  to  be  admitted  one  of  the  Confederated  States  of  America.” 
The  tone  of  this  petition  is  decidedly  more  modest  than  that  of  the 
army  plan.  Notice  the  dependent,  even  “  colonial  ”  relation  proposed 
before  admission  to  statehood. 

These  schemes  were  of  course  suggestive.  While  there  was  no 
more  immediate  outcome  than  the  formation  of  the  Ohio  Land  Com¬ 
pany,3  still  it  was  probably  because  of  the  attention  the  question  of 
new  states  was  receiving  that  Mr.  Bland,  about  the  same  time,  brought 
the  question  before  Congress.  His  motion  not  only  provided  for  the 
soldiers,  giving  each  one  thirty  acres  for  each  dollar  of  arrearages  due, 
but  also  proposed  that  the  western  country  be  laid  off  into  districts 
not  larger  than  tw7o  degrees  in  latitude.  Any  district  was  to  be  admit- 

1  Pickering  to  Hodgdon,  Pickering’s  Life  of  Pickering ,  i,  457. 

2  The  petition  in  full  is  found  in  Bancroft’s  History  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States ,  i,  314;  in  Ohio  Archccological  and  Historical  Quarterly ,  i,  38,  and 
Cutler's  Life  of  Cutler ,  i,  159,  cf.  I.  W.  Andrews  in  Magazine  of  American  His¬ 
tory,  August,  1886,  p.  136. 

3  Report  of  House  Committee,  quoted  in  Ohio  Archczological  and  Historical  Quar¬ 
terly,  i,  38. 


[474] 


Forming  and  Admitting  New  States 


85 


ted  into  the  union  as  a  state,  and  011  an  equality  with  the  original 
states,  as  soon  as  it  reached  a  population  of  20,000  male  inhabitants. 
One-tenth  of  the  land  was  to  be  reserved  to  the  United  States,  the 
returns  from  which  land  to  be  appropriated  to  the  payment  of  the 
United  States  civil  list,  erecting  frontier  forts  and  seminaries  of  learn¬ 
ing,  building  and  equipping  a  navy,  “  and  to  no  other  use  or  purpose 
whatever.”  If  this  scheme  had  been  applied  to  the  territory  north 
of  the  Ohio  river  there  would  have  been  eight  or  ten  states  in  that 
region.  Requiring  20,000  resident  males  before  admitting  to  state¬ 
hood  means  a  requirement  of  something  less  than  a  total  population 
of  40,000,  as  the  number  of  males  is  generally  greater  than  that  of  the 
females  in  any  new  state.  The  Bland  motion  was  referred  to  a  com¬ 
mittee,  and  seems  to  have  gone  no  further. 

The  various  propositions  thus  far  seem  to  have  been  without  definite 
outcome  in  the  individual  cases,  but  certainly  they  must  have  had 
some  bearing  on  the  system  which  was  being  gradually  worked  out, 
reacting  perhaps  on  the  public  opinion  whose  trend  they  exhibit. 
Thus  far  the  only  congressional  action  concerning  new  states  was  in 
the  resolve  of  October  10,  1780,  promising  that  such  states  would  be 
formed  from  ceded  territory,  of  a  size  not  over  150  nor  less  than  100 
miles  square,  and  admitted  into  the  union  with  “  the  same  rights  of 
sovereignly,  freedom  and  independence  as  the  other  states.”  Con¬ 
gress  concluded  that  the  time  had  come  to  take  some  definite  steps 
toward  fulfilling  this  promise  and  so  it  was  decided,  October  15,  1783, 
to  appoint  a  committee  to  draw  up  a  plan  of  organization  and  govern¬ 
ment.1  It  was  evidently  this  committee  that  reported  the  scheme 
which  became  the  ordinance  of  1784. 

As  a  landmark  in  the  history  of  state  making  the  ordinance  of  1784 
deserves  consideration  second  only  to  the  ordinance  of  1787.  The 
scheme  adopted  in  it  has  been  called  Jefferson’s  plan  because  he  was 
chairman  of  the  committee,  the  other  members  being  Howell,  of 
Rhode  Island,  and  Chase,  of  Maryland.  A  great  part  of  the  territory 
west  of  the  Alleghanies  still  remained  un ceded  to  Congress,  but  it 
was  taken  for  granted  that  the  states  would  give  up  their  claims,  and 
the  whole  region  as  far  as  the  Mississippi  was  cut  up  into  proposed 
new  states.  The  odd  parallels  of  latitude  formed  their  northern  and 
southern  boundaries,  while  a  meridian  passing  through  the  “lowest 
point  of  the  rapids  of  the  Ohio”  divided  the  west  into  two  tiers  of 
states.  Another  through  the  “western  cape  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Great  Kenawha  *  ’  cut  off  the  tier  of  the  old  states.  It  was  intended 
that  the  smaller  states  of  the  central  tier  should  hold  the  balance 
between  those  lying  on  the  seaboard  and  those  along  the  Mississippi — 


1  Journals,  viii,  442. 


[475] 


86 


Annaes  of  the;  American  Academy 


at  least  that  is  the  explanation  given  by  Mr.  Howell,1  member  of  the 
committee.  He  explained,  too,  that  while  Virginia  and  North  Caro¬ 
lina  were  cut  off  on  their  western  sides  by  the  Kenawha  meridian, 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  were  to  extend  to  that  of  the  falls  of  the 
Ohio,  “as  their  Atlantic  coast  falls  off  west.”  Jefferson’s  plan  pro¬ 
vided  for  fourteen  new  states.  He  gave  rather  strange  names  (e.  g.y 
Cheronesus,  Assenisipia)  to  ten  of  them,  and  it  was  thought  that  these 
ten  would  be  organized  first.2 

Each  of  these  districts  was  to  hold  its  own  convention,  Congress 
appointing  time  and  place,  and  adopt  the  constitution  of  some  one  of 
the  old  states,  subject  to  alteration  afterwards  by  the  regular  legisla¬ 
ture.  Between  this  time  and  the  admission  of  the  state  a  delegate 
might  be  kept  in  Congress  with  the  right  of  debating,  but  not  of 
voting.  When  any  district  attained  a  population  of  20,000  free  inhab¬ 
itants  a  convention  might  be  held,  Congress  appointing  time  and  place 
as  before,  “to  establish  a  permanent  constitution  and  government;”  3 
but  admission  “  by  its  delegates  into  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states  ”  should  not  be  granted 
any  state  till  it  “shall  have  of  free  inhabitants  as  many  as  shall  then 
be  in  any  one  of  the  least  numerous  of  the  thirteen  original  states.”  4 
There  was  some  discussion  in  Congress  on  the  question  of  what  vote 
to  require  for  admission  of  a  state.  The  first  report  provided  that  the 
consent  of  nine  states  should  be  necessary,  but  it  was  amended  to 
read,  “  Provided  the  consent  of  so  many  states  in  Congress  is  first 
obtained  as  may  at  the  time  be  competent  to  such  admission.” 

So  Jefferson’s  plan  as  embodied  in  the  ordinance  of  1784  finally 
passed  Congress,5  and  was  a  law  of  the  land  for  three  years.  The 
settlers  in  the  trans-Alleghany  regions  of  North  Carolina  were  encour¬ 
aged  b}7,  it  to  organize  the  government  of  Franklin,  conceiving  that 
with  the  territorial  cession  of  that  state  the  time  had  come  for  some 
of  the  state  making  contemplated.  But  when  North  Carolina  repealed 
her  act  of  cession  Congress  could  give  no  encouragement  to  the  Frank¬ 
lin  movement  and  it  was  soon  crushed  out  by  the  mother  state.  The 
ordinance  of  1784  was  as  short  lived  as  the  state  which  it  seemed  to 

1  David  Howell  to  Jonathan  Arnold,  Staples’  Rhode  Island  in  the  Continental 
Congress,  479. 

2  Pennsylvania  Packet,  September  30,  1785,  cf.  Barrett,  Evolution  of  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  p.  20,  cf.  McMaster’s  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,  i,  165, 
who  speaks  of  seventeen  states,  with  eight  of  them  named. 

3  Merriam  ( Legislative  History  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  p.  12)  says  that  20,000 
was  the  requisite  number  for  admission,  as  does  also  McMaster,  History  of  the 
People  of  the  United  States ,  iii,  93. 

4  About  this  time  Delaware  was  thought  to  have  a  population  of  37,000.  Dexter’s 
Estimates  of  Population  in  the  American  Colonies ,  p.  19. 

5  The  ordinance  in  full  is  found  in  Journals  ix,  153. 

[476] 


I 


Forming  and  Admitting  New  States  87 

call  into  existence,  and  in  1787  it  was  superseded  by  the  far  more 
famous  ordinance  of  that  year. 

A  desire  for  fewer  new  states  seems  to  have  been  the  main  reason  for 
setting  aside  the  law  of  1784.  Soon  after  its  passage  Jefferson  left  Con¬ 
gress  and  Monroe  became  the  leading  figure  in  the  movement  to  organ¬ 
ize  the  west.  He  visited  the  western  country  and  came  to  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  in  the  future  there  would  be  a  diversity  of  interests  between 
the  east  and  west,  making  it  desirable  from  the  eastern  point  of  view 
that  the  west  should  not  get  too  much  political  power.1  He  thought, 
moreover,  that  much  of  the  territory  was  so  “  miserably  poor  ”  that 
some  of  the  districts  would  “  perhaps  never  contain  a  sufficient  num¬ 
ber  of  inhabitants  to  entitle  them  to  membership  in  the  confederacy.” 
He  succeeded  in  getting  the  matter  referred  to  a  committee  which  made 
reports  favoring  the  division  of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio 
into  not  less  than  two  nor  more  than  five  states.  At  one  time  William 
Grayson,  of  Virginia,  moved  a  definite  division  of  the  territory  into 
five  states,  but  this  was  defeated  by  the  opposition  of  the  northern 
members.  It  was  expected  that  the  northwest  would  be  settled  from 
the  south  and  have  agricultural  interests  like  the  south.2  It  was  con¬ 
sidered  that  the  political  interests  of  the  new  country  required  many 
and  small  states  ;  therefore  the  south,  on  the  w’hole,  supported  that 
plan.  Jefferson  seemed  much  disappointed  that  his  scheme  of  many 
small  states  had  been  set  aside,  and  remonstrated  vigorously  in  long 
letters  from  Paris  to  Monroe  and  Madison,3  fearing  that  this,  together 
with  the  disposition  to  close  the  Mississippi,  would  produce  “  the  sev¬ 
erance  of  the  eastern  and  western  parts  of  our  confederacy.”  How¬ 
ever,  three  states,  with  a  possibility  of  five,  was  the  decision  for  the 
northwest,  as  made  in  the  ordinance  of  1787. 

A  committee  appointed  to  report  a  form  of  temporary  government, 
Monroe  being  chairman,  proposed  two  stages  of  territorial  govern¬ 
ment  with  chief  officers  appointed  by  Congress  and  a  congressional 
delegate  with  half  powers.  This  was  adopted.  The  second  stage  was 
authorized  in  any  district  on  acquiring  “  five  thousand  free  male  in¬ 
habitants  of  full  age.”  The  idea  of  the  territorial  delegate  we  have 
seen  in  most  of  the  plans  described  above,  beginning  with  that  of 
Thomas  Paine. 

The  question  of  the  population  requisite  for  admission  to  the  union 
met  with  more  discussion.  The  committee,  under  southern  influence, 
proposed  to  retain  that  part  of  Jefferson’s  plan,  i.e.,  to  require  a  popu- 

1  Monroe  to  Jefferson,  Bancroft’s  History  of  the  Formation  of  the  Constitution ,  i,. 
480. 

2  Notice  Madison’s  opinion,  Elliot's  Debates ,  iii,  313. 

8  Jefferson's  Writings  (Ford),  iv,  333. 

[477] 


88 


Annals  of  the  American  Academy 


lation  as  large  as  the  least  numerous  of  the  original  thirteen  states.1 
After  some  southerners  on  this  committee  had  been  replaced  by- 
northerners,  a  report  was  made  raising  the  admission  requirement  to 
a  population  equal  to  one-thirteenth  part  of  the  citizens  of  the  original 
states  (to  be  computed  from  the  last  enumeration),  besides  the  con¬ 
sent  of  Congress.  But  before  considering  the  admission  requirements 
laid  down  in  the  ordinance  of  1787,  let  us  review  some  of  the  proposi¬ 
tions  previously  made  on  this  point. 

Silas  Deane  in  December,  1776,  suggested  an  admission  requirement 
of  something  less  than  five  thousand  inhabitants. 

Thomas  Paine  (1780)  proposed  admission  in  seven  years  after  terri¬ 
torial  organization,  leaving  open  the  question  of  numbers. 

By  the  army  plan  (April,  1783)  the  new  state  was  to  come  in  at  one 
jump  under  no  condition  of  time  or  of  numbers. 

Mr.  Bland’s  motion  (June  5,  1783)  proposed  something  less  than  a 
total  population  of  forty  thousand. 

The  officers’  petition  (June  16,  1783)  was  indefinite,  merely  pro¬ 
posing  admission  “in  time.” 

Jefferson,  at  the  head  of  a  congressional  committee,  proposed 
(March,  1784)  admission  of  a  new  state  when  its  population  became 
equal  to  that  of  the  least  numerous  of  the  original  ones,  and  with  the 
consent  of  nine. 

The  ordinance  of  1784  (adopted  April  23)  merely  changed  the  nine 
states  requirement  to  consent  of  so  many  “  as  may  at  the  time  be 
competent.” 

A  committee  under  northern  influence  reported  (September  19, 
1786)  that  a  population  equal  to  one-thirteenth  that  of  the  original 
states  be  required,  besides  the  consent  of  Congress. 

And  now  we  come  to  the  final  decision.  The  ordinance  of  1787, 
referring  to  the  new  states  proposed  in  the  northwest,  declares  as 
follows  : 

“Whenever  an}7  of  the  said  states  shall  have  sixty  thousand  free 
inhabitants  therein,  such  state  shall  be  admitted  by  its  delegates  into 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
states  in  all  respects  whatever  ;  and  shall  be  at  liberty  to  form  a  per¬ 
manent  constitution  and  state  government  :  Provided  the  constitution 
so  to  be  formed  shall  be  republican  and  in  conformity  to  the  principles 
contained  in  these  articles  ;  and,  so  far  as  it  can  be  consistent  with  the 
general  interest  of  the  confederacy,  such  admission  shall  be  allowed  at 
an  earlier  period  and  when  there  may  be  a  less  number  of  free  inhabi¬ 
tants  in  any  state  than  sixty  thousand.”2 

* 

1  Winsor’s  Narrative  and  Critical  History ,  vii,  537. 

2  The  ordinance  in  full  Is  in  Journals ,  xii,  85. 

[478] 


Three- Cent  Fares 


89 


It  would  be  interesting  to  follow  the  development  of  this  system  of 
forming  and  admitting  new  states  in  some  of  its  later  details,  but  with 
the  adoption  of  the  ordinance  of  1787  and  its  ratification  by  Congress 
under  the  Constitution  the  outlines  of  the  system  were  definitely  estab¬ 
lished.  The  enabling  act,  a  somewhat  uniform  set  of  conditions  for 
admission,  and  other  interesting  outgrowths  could  be  easily  traced,  but 
the  purpose  of  this  paper  has  been  sufficiently  accomplished  perhaps 
without  it,  by  showing  the  rise  and  development  of  the  idea  of  new 
state  organization,  and  a  relation  between  the  new  governments  and 
that  of  the  United  States  culminating  in  admission  to  the  Union  as 
provided  by  the  ordinance  of  1787. 

George  H.  Aeden. 

Carleton  College ,  Northjield,  Minn. 


